Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Science Of Reading topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSDE presents science-aligned literacy framework, emphasizes structured, inclusive classroom practices
Summary
MSDE literacy staff presented the science of reading to the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board, urging explicit, systematic, data-driven instruction and attention to multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Board members asked about technology, special-education supports and standards alignment.
Elena McKell and Nancy Perkins of the Maryland State Department of Education told the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board that ‘the science of reading’ is an evolving, evidence‑based body of research that should inform classroom practice rather than act as a single packaged program. McKell said: “The science of reading is not a program. . . it's information that we use to inform our practices in the classroom.”
The presentation explained the research foundations (including the simple view of reading, the five pillars identified by the National Reading Panel, and Scarborough's reading rope) and translated findings into classroom guidance: explicit phonics and phonemic awareness in early grades, scope-and-sequence for phonics, frequent screening and diagnostics, formative progress monitoring and high‑quality instructional materials. Perkins described classroom practice as “explicit, systematic, and engaging,” and outlined assessment layers from universal screeners to diagnostic and progress‑monitoring tools.
Presenters also emphasized culturally and linguistically responsive implementation. McKell and Perkins said high expectations and representation in instructional materials matter for comprehension and engagement. McKell urged teachers to adapt vocabulary and feedback for multilingual learners and to incorporate students’ home languages: “Vocabulary, for example, should be adjusted based on that student's proficiency with English vocabulary.”
During Q&A, board members raised several operational questions. Members asked how digital reading and AI tools fit with the science; McKell said MSDE is investigating digital literacy and AI integration and is developing guidance. Concerns about students who are deaf, hard of hearing or visually impaired prompted discussion of visual phonics, assistive strategies and MSDE collaboration with its Office of Special Education and Maryland School for the Deaf to produce tailored guidance.
Board members also pressed how the K–12 standards and teacher preparation will be aligned to the science of reading. Perkins said a standards review and a focus on foundational skills are under way, and McKell noted literacy coaching and professional learning resources MSDE plans to share. The board and presenters agreed that implementation must pair research with attention to access—offering CPD options, microcredentials and supports for educators who need coursework or demonstration of proficiency.
The presentation materials were provided to the board for reference and MSDE staff offered to circulate guidance and transition‑policy documents for members and local education agencies.
